California State University,

Sacramento (CSUS)

University of California, Davis
(UCD)

California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans)



THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF A
RAINFALL SIMULATOR


Presented at:
International Erosion Control Association (IECA), 34th Annual Conference and
Expo., Las Vegas, Nevada, February 24-28, 2003

Authors:
Jacqueline Blanquies, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
Misty Scharff, Caltrans/CSUS Storm Water Program
Brent Hallock, PhD., California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

Disclaimer:
This work reflects the authors opinions and does not represent official policy or
endorsement by the California Department of Transportation, the California State
University, or the University of California.



Caltrans Storm Water Program
Office of Water Programs, CSU, Sacramento
7801 Folsom Boulevard, Suite 102, Sacramento, CA 95826


PP044
THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF A RAINFALL SIMULATOR

Authors
Jacqueline Blanquies Misty Scharff Brent Hallock, PhD
Cal Poly State University Cal State University Cal Poly State University
San Luis Obispo Sacramento San Luis Obispo
California California California
USA USA USA

Presenter
Jacqueline Blanquies
Cal Poly State University
37 Guerra Drive
San Luis Obispo
CA
93405
USA
(805) 748-1904
jblanqui@calpoly.edu


ABSTRACT

A reliable, accurate and portable rainfall simulator was needed for vegetative and erosion control
research at California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo (Cal Poly) for California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and California State University Sacramento. This
simulator was designed to be easily set up and maintained as well as able to create a variety of
rainfall regimes. The nozzle performance tests and lateral spacing tests were performed at Cal
Polys Erosion Research Facility. This simulator was designed and constructed based upon the
principles of the Norton Ladder Type Rainfall Simulator. This simulator is the standard for
research involving simulated rainfall. Construction took place at Cal Polys farm shop. The
rainfall simulator is a pressurized nozzle type simulator with a cam-operated oscillating boom. It
emits uniform rainfall on a plot 1 m (3 ft) wide by 3.56 m (12 ft) long. The nozzles at 47.6 kPa (7
psi), Spraying Systems Companys Floodjet 3/8K SS45, emitted an average drop size of 1.7 mm
(0.07 in) and a range of drop sizes of less than 1 mm to 7 mm (0.04 in to 0.3 in), correlating well
to storms less than 50 mmhr
-1
(2 in hr
-1
) as is common on Californias Central Coast. The
structure of the simulator was built from aluminum, supporting the four- nozzle boom. The
nozzles are spaced 99 cm (39 inches) apart. A box with an opening of 15 cm by 11 cm (6 by 4.5
inches) was beneath each nozzle to create the proper spray angle, critical for lateral spray
uniformity. An additional opening in the box is attached to a system which returns the unused
water to the storage tank. Flow meters control the inflow of water from the storage tank, ensuring
each nozzle has the same discharge rate, no matter the orientation of the simulator. A computer-
driven motor and cam system controls the storm intensity. The number of oscillations per minute
of the nozzle across the box opening determines the intensity. Design storms resemble a bell
curve, typical of California storms. The support system is collapsible, easy to set up and
maintain. The resulting simulator is economical (less than $7,000 to construct), made with
commercially available parts, easy to set-up and maintain and highly accurate.

Keywords: rainfall simulation; nozzle; rainfall charactaristics

Marketing Paragraph

The recent interest in testing erosion control products and increased regulations involving storm
water quality has created a need for accurate testing equipment. The ability to accurately
simulate rainfall has grown in necessity as testing of such materials increases. This paper deals
with the complexities of rainfall and the performance goals involved in designing and building a
rainfall simulator.
INTRODUCTION

Simulating Rainfall

The primary purpose of a rainfall simulator
is to simulate natural rainfall accurately and
precisely. Rainfall is complex, with
interactions among properties (drop size,
drop velocity, etc.) and large climatic
variation based on topography and marine
influences.

Properly simulating rainfall requires several
criteria: 1. Drop size distribution near to
natural rainfall (Bubenzer, 1979a). 2. Drop
impact velocity near natural rainfall of
terminal velocity (Laws, 1941) (Gunn and
Kinzer, 1949). 3. Uniform rainfall intensity
and random drop size distribution (Laws and
Parsons, 1943). 4. Uniform rainfall
application over the entire test plot. 5.
Vertical angle of impact. 6. Reproducible
storm patterns of significant duration and
intensity (Moore e. al., 1983) (Meyer and
Harmon, 1979).

Drop size distribution, impact velocity and
reproducible storm patterns must be met to
simulate the kinetic energy of rainfall.
Kinetic energy (KE = mV
2
/2) is a single
measure of the rainfall used to correlate
natural storms and simulator settings.

Drop size distribution depends on many
storm characteristics, especially rainfall
intensity. Drop size distribution varies with
intensity (from less than 1 mm to about 7
mm), increasing with the intensity to 2.25
mm median drop size for high intensity
storms (Laws and Parsons, 1943). Most
design standards were based on Laws and
Parsons (1943) studies.

Unfortunately, most of the rainfall studies
were in Illinois, Washington DC,

Washington, or locations in the south,
outside California. The mountains and ocean
add to the variation in the rainfall
characteristics (McCool, 1979). California
has both topographic and marine influences.
No studies of rainfall characteristics, (Drop
size, storm intensity in microclimates, etc.)
were completed in the state of California.
Parameters can be approximated using the
studies from other regions, but an accurate
simulation of California rainfall is difficult
without adequate research studies of
California conditions.

Drop velocity is important in designing a
rainfall simulator. Drops from natural
rainfall are at terminal velocity when they
hit the soil surface (Meyer and McCune,
1958). Therefore, a rainfall simulator must
create drops of adequate size and velocity to
simulate the same condition, indicating the
importance between an adequate and related
fall distance and drop size distribution. A
direct relationship exists between drop
diameter and fall distance (Laws, 1941).

A reproducible storm pattern is easy to
simulate when a simulator can be adjusted to
the desired intensities and duration. Since
computers are inexpensive, a simulator can
be driven by specialized software
controlling the intensity and duration of the
storm. The Vegetative Establishment and
Maintenance Study (VEMS) team controls
their simulators in a manner creating bell
shaped storm patterns, simulating the
intensity variation inherent in nature.
Previously Developed Rainfall
Simulators

Simulators can be separated into two large
groups (drop- forming simulators and
pressurized nozzle simulators) (Thomas and
El Swaify, 1989). Drop- forming simulators
are impractical for field use since they
require such a huge distance (10 meters) to
reach terminal velocity (Grierson and Oades,
1977). The drop-forming simulators do not
produce a distribution of drops unless a
variety of drop- forming sized tubes are used.
Another negative of the drop forming
simulator is their limited application to small
plots (Bubenzer, 1979b). Several points of
raindrop production must be closely packed
to create an intense enough downpour of
rain. Drop forming simulators use small
pieces of yarn, glass capillary tubes,
hypodermic needles, polyethylene tubing, or
metal tubing to form drops (Bubenzer,
1979b).

Pressurized nozzle simulators are suited for
a variety of uses. They can be used in the
field and their intensities can be varied more
than the drop forming type (Grierson and
Oades, 1977). Since drops exiting the
nozzles have an initial velocity greater than
zero due to the pressure driving them out, a
shorter fall distance is required to reach
terminal velocity. Nozzle intensities vary
with orifice diameter, the hydraulic pressure
on the nozzle, the spacing of the nozzle and
nozzle movement (Meyer, 1979).

Pressurized nozzle simulators can produce
variable storm intensities. A continuous
spray from a nozzle creates an unnaturally
intense storm. Some method of starting or
stopping the spray is needed. The solutions
have been a rotating disc, a rotating boom, a
solenoid-controlled simulator (Miller, 1987)
and an elaborate sprinkler system (Sumner
et al., 1996). The simplest to use is a rotating
or oscillating boom (Bubenzer, 1979b).
The most popular nozzle is the Veejet 80100
nozzle run at 41 kPa (6psi). It was chosen
because it most closely resembles the drop
size distribution of erosive storm patterns in
the Midwest (Bubenzer, 1979a). Accurate
testing of nozzles must be done to ensure
adequate spray coverage and uniformity in
the plot.

The Norton Simulator

The Norton Ladder Type Rainfall Simulator
is a spray boom that oscillates across a test
plot at varying speeds to produce variable-
intensity storms. Scott McAfee and Darrel
Norton designed the Norton Ladder Type
Rainfall Simulator for use at the USDA
National Soil Erosion Research Lab at
Purdue University. Boxes around each
nozzle regulate the spray for proper nozzle
overlap and swath width. A clutch brake
starts and stops the boom as regulated by a
signal from the control box. A small gear
motor drives the clutch brake and the boom.
The four nozzles are supplied with water in
sets of two; each set of nozzles has its own
hose and pressure gauge to adjust for
differences in elevation, hose orientation,
etc.

The rainfall simulator uses a Spraying
systems Veejet 80100 nozzle. Typical,
manufacturer specified uses for this nozzle
include, dust control, industrial washing
applications and fire control. Its uses are
high-pressure, high- velocity- high- volume
water applications; all things rainfall is not.
The pressure range of the nozzle is quite
large, from 34 to 3400 kPa (5 to 500 psi)
yielding flow rates of 13.2 to 132 Liters per
minute (3.5 to35 gpm). A pressure of 41 kPa
(6 psi) produces drop size and intensity
similar to natural rainfall (Bubenzer, 1979a).
Most nozzles tend to produce irregular spray
when used at its capacity limits due to
machining differences. Thus, any
differences between nozzles are amplified
by the small psi used leading to a reduced
uniformity. A new nozzle was needed, one
with a narrower operation range, but similar
drop size and intensity.

IMPORTANT SIMULATOR
CHARACTERISTICS

Based upon the use and study of the ladder
type rainfall simulators used by the Cal Poly
Vegetative Establishment and Management
study (VEMS), a few design goals and
parameters were considered. Above all, a
rainfall simulator must be accurate and must
meet all six criteria for properly simulating
rainfall. Any other criteria a re a matter of
convenience for the user. These include
weight, ease of use, reliability, accuracy and
economy.

The simulator and support structure should
be as light as possible. Since most of the use
of the simulators is in the field and on
slopes, researchers should easily place them
in position. Conditions in the field lead to
the necessity of strong and lightweight
equipment.

In addition to being lightweight, the
simulator should also be easy to use and set-
up. The support system should be
adequately strong to withstand any wind and
all movements of the simulator. Ease of use
also includes easily readable instrumentation
and control systems. Proper instrumentation
must be used to monitor the flow of water to
the nozzles. These should be placed in such
a position as to accurately measure and help
regulate the inflow of water to the nozzles.
Flow gages are preferred for the rainfall
simulator because of the elevation
differences between the points and the
difficult correlation of flow rate and
pressure. The control box should be built to
withstand the electronic loads placed on it
with a safety factor to prevent burnout. A
computer-driven labview set up is highly
desirable.

Reliability ties in with strength and proper
instrumentation of the rainfall simulator.
Reliability relates to the repeatability of
storm events. A computer-derived storm is
the most reliable because it eliminates the
human error involved in altering intensities.
Also, when properly monitored by the
correct instrumentation, the reliability will
increase or at least be as high as possible.

Accuracy is achieved by creating uniform
rainfall across the test plot. When a nozzle
with good drop size distribution for
simulating rainfall is chosen and is placed in
series with adequate spacing to allow
adequate overlap lateral uniformity is
achieved. When this laterally- uniform boom
is swept back and forth across an area, the
spray will be uniform. Properly designing
and testing the boxes used for cut ting off the
spray is critical for creating uniform rainfall.

Without question the most desirable
characteristic of a rainfall simulator is its
cost; it should be as low as possible.
Designing a simulator must be done with
cost in mind. The goal is to design and build
a rainfall simulator for less than ten
thousand dollars.

TESTING

Different nozzles require different lateral
spacing, to create uniformity spray overlap.
The overlap is necessary to achieve lateral
uniformity thus uniformity of spray up and
down the test plot. Since the variation
between points is more important than
amount of spray, standard deviation of
points (6- inch cans capturing the spray) was
found. Several different lateral spacings
were tested.

Nozzle choice

The nozzle tested was the Floodjet SS3/8k-
45 with an orifice diameter of 5.51 mm
(0.221 in). These were agricultural nozzles
that closely resemble the Veejet 80100 flow
rates (12.1 L/min at 34 kPa for the floodjet
as compared to the 13.2 L/min at 34 kPa for
the Veejet) as specified. The optimum range
of the Floodjet is much narrower than the
Veejet nozzle; its range is from 20.5 to 410
kPa (3 to 60 psi). The drop size distribution
of the Floodjet nozzles were specified to be
similar to natural rainfall in the catalogue
(Figure 1).

Figure 1. Spraying Systems Company
Floodjet SS3/8k-45 nozzle.

The basis for boom length tests and drop-
size tests is the nozzle. The Floodjet SS3/8k-
45 nozzles are far superior for rainfall
simulation than the Veejet nozzles. Veejet
nozzles are industrial spray nozzles, used for
cleaning tanks and other high-pressure
applications whereas Floodjet nozzles are
used for agricultural spraying practices. The
Veejet that is presently used on the rainfall
simulator has a much wider pressure range
than the Floodjet nozzle. Thus, if there were
a small pressure imbalance or fluctuation in
the boom, the amount of rainfall applied to
the test would vary significantly less with
the Floodjet than with the Veejet.

Lateral uniformity testing

Several boom sizes were tested. The tests
were conducted on calm, sunny days. The
lateral uniformity was tested under a nozzle
pressure of 48 kPa (7 psi). A spray angle of
53
o
was determined by geometry and the
outside of the spray was cut off by boxes
around the nozzle. The spray was captured
by a grid-work of 6 inch stainless steel cans
on the ground, 8- feet below the nozzles. The
volume in each can was measured with a
1000 ml graduated cylinder and recorded.
This process was repeated three times for
each boom. The standard deviation of the
spray was determined and a regression
analysis was performed (Table 1).

The results indicate there are a number of
boom lengths that can be used with the
Flood Jet nozzle. The 48-inch boom had the
lowest standard deviation; thus choosing this
nozzle spacing will give the best uniformity
for simulating rainfall. However, the 36, 39,
48 and 60- inch booms were not statistically
different. So a design choice was made. The
smaller lateral spacing gives a much more
intense storm, which may or may not be
appropriate for the test site climate.

Table 1. Standard deviations for the
tested booms.
Nozzle
Spacing
Average Standard Deviation
in ml
60 62.34
54 77.66
51 98.92
48 62.54
42 82.62
39 55.16
36 56.63
Norton 139.19

Drop Size Test

Proper drop size is critical for simulation of
rainfall. The drop size distribution was
tested using Eigel and Moores (1983) oil
method. This entails mixing 1 part STP oil
treatment and 1 part Swan brand mineral oil.
Drops with ranges from 0.5- 7 mm (0.02 to
0.28 in) are caught in a petri dish of oil and
held there for enough time to count and
measure them. This approach was much
simpler and easier to perform than the other
methods, which include using flour and
time- lapse photography.

The found drop size distribution is that of
natural rainfall. Drop size ranges from less
than 1 mm to about 7 mm (0.04 to 0.28 in)
in diameter. The average drop size is 1.71
mm (0.067 in). The average drop size is
smaller than the standard of 2.25 mm (0.089
in) used on previous simulators but, agrees
with the literature for drop size for lower
intensity storms(less than 50 mm, 2 in, per
hour).

The drops were assumed to be at terminal
velocity due to their size and the height of
the boom. No tests were performed to find
drop velocity or energy due to several
previously conducted studies in the
literature.
Final Dimensions

The tests performed led to the final, critical
dimensions for the rainfall simulator. The
nozzles are spaced 99 cm (39 in) apart. The
simulator is approximately 3.56 m (140 in)
long and 41 cm (16 in) wide. The box
opening was determined by geometry and
the opening as seen by the nozzle is 15 cm
(6 in) wide, to cut off the spray for the
desired spray angle, by 11 cm (4.5 in) long,
to allow a large swath width (figure 2).

Figure 2. General spray box dimensions
Spray Box, Overhead View
11 cm
15 cm
11 cm
Spray Box, Side View
CONCLUSIONS AND FINAL DESIGN

The final design of the rainfall simulator is
similar to the original rainfall simulator with
a few critical changes. The framework
supporting the boom and machined
components of the control box are made
from aluminum. Since the nozzle was
changed to the Floodjet SS3/8k-45 nozzles,
the lateral spacing of the nozzles was
changed to 99 cm (39 in). The box
dimensions also changed to a wider, shorter
opening to regulate the spray. The gear
motor drives same clutch-brake assembly
which regulates the oscillations of the spray
boom. The water source is mounted on a
trailer with a pump to feed the simulator. A
network of hoses bring the water to the
simulator and a gutter along the side of the
simulator leading to hoses return unused
water to the tank to be used again, thus using
the water efficiently.

Flow gages at the inlet to the water manifold
are used in addition of pressure gages on top
of the water inlet manifold to regulate and
monitor the flow of water to the nozzles. A
laptop drives the system, bypassing many
issues created by the control box and
human-designed storms. The support system
is made of aluminum rods and therefor are
lightweight, strong and easily broken down.
The design is based on a tent design utilizing
a network of poles and connectors to support
the simulator in six positions along the
length.

Goals Achieved

The final simulator designed and built by the
VEMS research team achieved the goals set
forth. The chosen nozzle produces drop
sizes and distribution near to natural rainfall
for California storm conditions. Due to the
height of the simulator and initial velocity of
drops from the nozzle, the drops are at
terminal velocity. Uniformity of rainfall is
greater than 90% over the entire test plot
(for one simulator the test plot is 3.56 m
long and 1 m wide). The angle of impact of
the drops from the nozzle is vertical. The
computer-driven set up creates reproducible
storm patterns that can be varied over a
range of intensities.

The goals for the other more convenient
considerations were also met. The designed
simulator cost approximately seven
thousand dollars. The flow gages at the
source of water into the simulator help keep
the nozzles flowing at the same rate, thus
increasing both reliability and accuracy of
the design storms. The software drives the
system, thus eliminating human error and
increasing the usability of the entire system.
The freedom the computer provides allows
for fewer people to run experiments and
more time to observe the effects of the
rainfall on the test plot. Few people are
required to run the testing because the
simulators are light and easy to set up and
run.

REFERENCES

Bubenzer, G. D. 1979. Rainfall
characteristics important for simulation.
Pages 22-34 in Proceedings of the
Rainfall Simulator Workshop, Tucson
Arizona, March 7-9, 1979. U.S.
Department of Agriculture Science and
Education Administration Agricultural
Reviews and Manuals. ARM-W-10/July
1979. (a)

Bubenzer, G. D.. 1979. Inventory of
rainfall simulators. Pages 120-13. in
Proceedings of the Rainfall Simulator
Workshop, Tucson Arizona, March 7-9,
1979. U.S. Department of Agriculture
Science and Education Administration
Agricultural Reviews and Manuals.
ARM-W-10/July 1979. (b)

Eigel, J. D., and I. D. Moore. 1983. A
simplified technique for measuring
raindrop size and distribution.
Transactions of the ASAE:1079-1084

Grierson, I. T., J. M. Oades. 1977. A rainfall
simulator for field studies of run-off and
soil erosion. Agricultural Engineering
Res. 22:37-44

Gunn, R., and G. D. Kinzer, 1949. The
terminal velocity of fall for water
droplets. Journal Of Meteorology 6:243-
248.

Laws, J. O., 1941. Measurements of fall
velocity of water drops and raindrops.
Transactions of American Geophysics
Union 22:709-721.

Laws, J. O., and D. A. Parsons, 1943. The
relationship of raindrop-size to intensity.
Transaction of American Geophysics
Union 24:452-459

McCool, D. K. 1979. Regional differences
if rainfall characteristics and their
influence on rainfall simulator design.
Pages 17- in Proceedings of the Rainfall
Simulator Workshop, Tucson Arizona,
March 7-9, 1979. U.S. Department of
Agriculture Science and Education
Administration Agricultural Reviews
and Manuals. ARM-W-10/July 1979.

Meyer, L. D. and D. L. McCune. 1958.
Rainfall simulator for runoff plots.
Agricultural Engineering:10 644-648

Meyer, L D.. 1979. Methods for attaining
desired rainfall characteristics in rainfall
simulators. Pages 35-44 in Proceedings
of the Rainfall Simulator Workshop,
Tucson Arizona, March 7-9, 1979. U.S.
Department of Agriculture Science and
Education Administration Agricultural
Reviews and Manuals. ARM-W-10/July
1979.

Meyer, L. D. and W. C. Harmon. 1979.
Multiple- intensity rainfall simulator for
erosion research on row sideslopes.
Transactions of the American Society of
Agricultural Engineers 22:100-103.

Miller, W. P. 1987. A solenoid-operated,
variable intensity rainfall simulator. Soil
Science Society of America Journal
51:832-834.

Moore, Ian D., Michael C. Hirschi, and Billy
J Barfield. 1983. Kentucky rainfall
simulator. Transactions of the American
Society of Agricultural Engineers
23:1085-1089.

Sumner, H. R., R. D. Wauchope, C. C.
Truman, C. C. Dowler, and J. E. Hook.
1996. Rainfall simulator and plot design
for mesoplot runoff studies.
Transactions of the American Society of
Agricultural Engineers 39:125-130.

Thomas, N. P. and Samir A. El Swaify.
1989. Construction and calibration of a
rainfall Simulator. Journal of
Agricultural Engineering Research 43:1-
9.